* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Title: Fine-scale and Microhabitat Factors Influencing Terrestrial
Conservation biology wikipedia , lookup
Unified neutral theory of biodiversity wikipedia , lookup
Biogeography wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity wikipedia , lookup
Soundscape ecology wikipedia , lookup
Conservation agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Ecological fitting wikipedia , lookup
Reforestation wikipedia , lookup
Molecular ecology wikipedia , lookup
Conservation movement wikipedia , lookup
Occupancy–abundance relationship wikipedia , lookup
Latitudinal gradients in species diversity wikipedia , lookup
Restoration ecology wikipedia , lookup
Old-growth forest wikipedia , lookup
Human impact on the nitrogen cycle wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Operation Wallacea wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical ecology wikipedia , lookup
Habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Reconciliation ecology wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
Title: Fine-scale and Microhabitat Factors Influencing Terrestrial Amphibian Diversity in a Low-elevation Old Growth Forest in Central Appalachia Author: Joseph A. Baecher Eastern Kentucky University, Department of Biological Sciences 521 Lancaster Avenue Moore Building, 308 Richmond, Kentucky, 40475 Project Narrative: Introduction: Observations of patterns in species richness along environmental gradients are commonplace in ecology and biogeography, and a functional understanding of the mechanisms influencing these patterns is crucial for preserving biodiversity (Gaston 2000, Willig et al. 2003). Furthermore, analyzing species’ distribution and abundance along environmental gradients yields invaluable information about their niche requirements, population dynamics, and biotic interactions (Costa et al. 2008, Peterman and Semlitsch 2013), and can even inform decisions about habitat management and restoration (Peterson 2006). However, unnatural environmental gradients may not provide the spectrum of habitat parameters needed to fulfill the collective niche requirements of local species due to a greater proportion of disturbed area, and therefore research along natural gradients is needed to understand niche partitioning and model patterns in biodiversity. Species’ distributions on the landscape, and thus, the landscape’s biodiversity, are a function of these natural gradients, which include abiotic factors such as surface temperature, moisture, relief, water and soil chemistry, and sunlight, and biotic factors such as vegetative structure, and competition, and presence of predators, prey, and mates. Taxa likely to exhibit patterns in biodiversity in response to such natural gradients are those with limited dispersal capabilities, low reproductive success, and acute sensitivity to environmental conditions. Indeed, one such group, amphibians, is particularly responsive to environmental gradients (Werner et al. 2007, Semlitsch et al. 2015, Araújo et al. 2007). They are acutely sensitive to environmental contaminates, water and soil chemistry, and dewatering because of their highly permeable skin (Boone et al. 2007, Willson et al. 2012, Walls et al. 2013). As ecotherms, amphibians rely on landscape structure (Cowles 1958), and thermal and hydrologic regimes (Semlitsch et al. 2015) as well as prey availability, making them especially sensitive to habitat destruction and degradation (Brooks et al. 2002). As such, amphibians serve as effective biological indicators (Welsh and Ollivier 1998). These characteristics, in combination with a host of pressures, namely disease and habitat destruction, are why amphibians are currently experiencing unprecedented population declines at a global scale (Houlahan et al. 2000, Stuart et al. 2004). Despite amphibians’ sensitivity to the environment, some amphibians, particularly terrestrial plethodontid salamanders, can be found in extraordinary abundance (up to 7.38 individuals/m2) in natural systems (Burton and Likens 1975a; Semlitsch et al. 2014). As a result of their abundance, and an extensive list of known vertebrate predators, they have tremendous influence on direction and magnitude of energy flow through food webs (Burton and Likens 1975b; Semlitsch et al. 2014). Wyman (1998) found, experimentally, that through predation of macroinvertebrates, presence of a terrestrial salamander, Plethodon cinereus (Eastern red-backed salamander), can indirectly reduce decomposition of leaf-litter on the forest floor by 11–17%, with implications in regional biogeochemistry and global carbon cycling. Terrestrial salamanders are a vital component in temperate forest ecosystems of the eastern US, and mesic forests of the Appalachian Mountains contain the greatest diversity of caudates in the world (Dodd 2004). It is, therefore, crucial to understand the relationship of terrestrial amphibians to natural environmental gradients in Appalachia. Accurately describing details of terrestrial salamander distributions in the forests of Appalachia has long been a goal of scientists and naturalists (Cope 1870, Brimely 1912, King 1939, Hairston 1949, Highton and Peabody 2000, Dodd 2004). These observations are paramount to our knowledge of terrestrial amphibian natural history; however, further investigations are needed to understand the fine-scale relationships of these species within landscape structure. Recent studies have focused on the influence of anthropogenic disturbance regimes (e.g. silviculture [Pentranka et al. 1993], urbanization [Scheffers and Paszkowski 2012], habitat fragmentation [Wyman 1990], and extraction of natural resources [Drohan et al. 2012]) on terrestrial amphibian ecology in Appalachia; however, few have examined what governs their distribution in the sparsely distributed mature central Appalachian forests. Previous studies across natural ecosystems of Appalachia postulated that climatic variables likely delimit distributions of high-elevation specialists, including P. jordani (Red-cheeked Salamander), P. metcalfi (Southern Gray-cheeked Salamander), P. shermani (Red-legged Salamander), P. yonahlossee (Yonahlossee Salamander; Hairston 1950, 1951), and Desmognathus ocoee (Ocoee Salamander; Ford et al. 2002), and interspecific competition likely limits upward dispersal in lower elevation plethodontids, like P. glutinosis (Eastern slimy salamander). Notwithstanding, distributions of lower elevation terrestrial salamanders in Appalachia are thought to be influenced chiefly by availability of microhabitat features. Previous studies of amphibian communities in undisturbed Appalachian forests have determined that microhabitat parameters like soil chemistry (Jaeger 1971a, Wyman 1988), abundance of natural cover (i. e. coarse woody debris [CWD], rocks, and leaf litter; McKenny et al. 2006), and forest composition/canopy structure (Gibbs 1998) greatly influence terrestrial salamander distribution and abundance. Wyman and Jancola (1992) found that terrestrial salamander abundance and species richness increased steeply with soil pH from 3.5 to 4.5, and that community composition is greatly influenced by soil pH due to species-specific acid tolerance (Wyman 1988). Wyman and Hawksley-Lescault (1987) showed that P. cinereus tolerates a narrow range of soil pH, and that over 25% of the forest floor sampled contained unsuitable acid concentrations, and Eurycea bislineata (Northern Two-lined Salamander), D. fuscus (Northern Dusky Salamander), and Ambystoma maculatum (Spotted Salamander) tolerated more alkaline conditions, and were found in a wider range of pH concentrations. Similarly, Wyman (1988) found soil moisture to limit the distribution and abundance of Lithobates sylvaticus (Wood Frog), Notophthalmus viridescens (Eastern Newt), E. bislineata, D. fuscus, and A. maculatum. Other microhabitat features like substrate, cover type, and canopy have been shown to have marked affects on terrestrial amphibian populations. Peterman and Semlitsch (2013) found that dense-canopy ravine habitats with high moisture, and low solar transmittance conferred greatest abundance of P. glutinosis. Leaf-litter depth (Menin et al. 2007) and coarse woody debris on the forest floor has been shown to be important habitat features for numerous species of terrestrial salamanders across the eastern US (Harpole and Hass 1999, Todd and Rothermel 2006, Semlitsch et al. 2008). Furthermore, exploitation of preferred microhabitat by terrestrial salamanders may not be possible in the presence of competition (Jaeger 1971b) or predation (Hairston 1986), and therefore the niche structure and distribution of species may vary significantly (Hairston 1980). Variation in species-specific responses to environmental gradients is influenced by community interactions (MacArthur and Levins 1967), particularly in species-packed communities with overlap in fundamental niches (MacAuthor 1970). Plethodontid salamanders have long been recognized as model systems for the study of community interaction (Hairston 1949, 1951, 1980 and Highton 1972); up to five species can be found in a single habitat (Highton 1995). Microhabitat selection, resource allocation, and niche structures in salamanders belonging to the genus Desmognathus have been shown to vary greatly by community structure, and even in the presence of congeners of varying size (Krzyik 1979, Keen 1982). The effects of species interactions on the distribution of terrestrial salamanders of the genus Plethodon in the eastern United States is particularly fascinating. Intraspecific competition often leads to similarly sized species replacing one another in some regions (Jaeger 1970), and interspecific competition for food and space causing horizontal and vertical stratification in species distributions (Hairston 1951, Adams and Rohlf 2000). The ecology of terrestrial salamander communities in lower elevation Appalachian forest, like those of Central Appalachia, have not been studied as thoroughly as regions with greater topographic relief and a higher proportion of state and national parks (Piedmont, Blue Ridges, Southwestern Appalachians). Due to the diversity and endemism of terrestrial salamanders, community structure varies dramatically across physiographic regions of Appalachia, and therefore species interactions are likely unpredictable. Such phenomena can have tremendous influence on how terrestrial salamanders utilize environmental and resource gradients, and, therefore, regional studies are greatly needed. The objectives of this study are to determine how geographic (aspect, slope, and elevation) and environmental (coarse woody debris, canopy openness, and soil moisture, temperature, and pH) variables, and the co-occurrence of species, shape the fine-scale distribution and abundance of terrestrial amphibians in low elevation forest of Central Appalachia. Methods: Study Area: The Lilley Cornett Woods (LCW) Appalachian Ecological Research Station (Letcher County, KY, USA) is a 223-ha tract of land in the Cumberland Plateau. LCW has a temperate humid continental climate, with mean annual precipitation = 1130 mm and annual mean temperature = 13°C (Hill 1976). My study will take place in Short Trail Stand (STS), a mixed mesophytic old growth stand of LCW (Braun 1950; Martin 1975; Figure 1). STS contains 57 circular 0.04-ha sample plots, originally established by Martin (1975), representing approximately 10% of the total upland area in STS. Sample plots were created along vertical ravines (concave slope shape) and ridges (convex slope shape) for each slope position (lower [<365 m], middle [365 m – 427 m], upper, and ridge [> 1480 m]). Two sampling events will occur during three seasons (spring, summer, and fall) of 2016 at all 57 sites, resulting in six replications at each site (two per season). A subset of the 57 sites will be selected for an additional sampling event (three per season) each season to calculate probability of detection for terrestrial salamander species in STS. These sample plots will be chosen using vertically stratified random sampling by dividing STS into four elevational strata (lower, middle, upper, and ridge) and randomly selecting six sites with north- and south-facing slopes from each stratum. During every sampling event amphibian surveys, including visual encounter and quadrat sampling, will be conducted at each of the 57 plots (see below for details). Field Surveys: To eliminate sampling bias, increase replicability, and ensure plots are sampled thoroughly, a simple random sample design will be used, wherein the direction of linear visual encounter survey (VES) transects at each plot are determined by randomly selecting a bearing between 0° and 180°, with the midpoint of all transects pivoting and centering on the plot marker, which is positioned at the geometric center of each sample plot (Martin 1975). Microhabitat type may potentially differ across my sampling areas, therefore a transect design was selected to most thoroughly assess amphibian species within mid-sized sampling plots (Jaeger and Inger 1994). A 50x3-m transect will be established and searched opportunistically for amphibians under all natural cover (rocks and woody debris; Bailey et al. 2004). Visual encounter surveys will be conducted at every site during the spring, summer, and fall of 2016– 2017 (n=6), during times of day most advantageous for encountering amphibians (0800 – 1100 hrs and 1500 – 1900 hrs. Data collected at time of capture (i.e. time of day, temperature, days since last rain, Julian date) will be incorporated into models to control for variation in conditions among sampling periods, locations, and seasons. Quadrat sampling: With goals of sampling multiple species, including some large-bodied species (e.g., Pseudotriton ruber (Red Salamander), P. glutinosis, and A. maculatum), utilizing a variety of habitat types, a broad-quadrat sampling (large quadrats; 8m x 8m) technique would be most appropriate for this study (Jaeger and Inger 1994). However, thoroughly sampling and classifying habitat in such a large area may prove infeasible, therefore an enlarged pointsampling technique is posed, in which all leaf-litter and natural cover within a randomly placed 4-m2 quadrat are removed and searched for amphibians. Quadrat sampling will occur in conjunction with visual encounter surveys. Quadrat placement within the linear VES transect will be determined by selecting a random number from an interval (1–50) corresponding to the length of the VES transect; the quadrat will then be tossed at the randomly selected distance along the transect. Amphibian data collection: Snout-to-vent length (SVL) will be measured in situ by placing the animal in a clear plastic bag, moistened with distilled H2O, and measuring from the tip of the snout to the posterior edge of the vent (nearest 1 mm) using a hard ruler fitted with a 90° stop. Mass will be recorded using a digital PESOLA scale (accuracy = 0.1 g). Juveniles and adults will be delineated to the best of our ability using published species-specific SVL and masses (Houck 1982, Johnson 2000, Dodd 2004, Trauth et al. 2004, Niemiller and Reynolds 2011). Additional demographic data (sex, gravidity, damage/condition) will be collected in situ before releasing animals at their capture location. Environmental Data Collection: Quantification of forest canopy openness will be achieved using hemispherical canopy photography (Frazer et al. 1997; Baldwin et al. 2006), wherein a 180° fish-eye lens is used to capture canopy structure (Herbert 1987), as well as canopy light transmission. Once per season, canopy of each sample plot will be photographed during the early morning (0600 – 0700 hours). Photographs will then be analyzed using Gap Light Analyzer (GLA) ver. 2 (Frazer et al. 1999). Each season, fallen coarse woody debris (CWD; logs and branches; excluding snags) larger than 20 cm in diameter (Miller and Liu 1991) will be measured at each 50x3-m VES transect. CWD measurements will follow methodology of Muller (2003) and Davis et al. (2015), wherein terminal and center diameters of each item are measured using meter tape. CWD volume is calculated using the formula of a truncated cone (or conical frustum): 𝝅 𝑽 = 𝟑 𝒉(𝑹𝟐 + 𝑹𝒓 + 𝒓𝟐 ); where h = length of the item, R = radius at the terminal of greater diameter, and r = radius at the terminal of smaller diameter. During each sampling event leaf-litter density will be calculated by dividing each 4-m2 quadrat into 4 1-m2 subplots, and measuring leaf-litter depth and wet-mass in each. Depth will be measured as distance from the leaf-litter surface (at a point representative of the subplot) to the top soil. Density will be measured by collecting all leaf-litter within a subplot into a bag and weighing using a PESOLA scale. Thus, leaf-litter density will be reported as an average of 4 measurements at each quadrat per sampling event. Soil moisture and temperature will be measured during each quadrat-sampling event using a Fieldscout TDR 100 Soil Moisture Meter (Spectrum Technologies, Inc.) and a GENERAL 8” digital thermometer (accuracy = ±1° C), respectively. Measurements will be taken at 4 locations within each 4-m2 quadrate and averaged. Soil pH, measured as the upper-most horizon below leaf-litter, will be recorded in situ at each sampling quadrat using a YSI 556 multi-parameter water quality meter by creating a 1:1 soil-to-water suspension, stirring vigorously, and allowing to stand for 30 minutes before measuring (YSI Inc. 2015). GIS and Spatial Covariates: Aspect and elevation of each plot will be collected using ArcGIS 10.1 (ESRI 2011). Elevation data will be ground-truthed in situ for accuracy and validation of GIS data. Geospatial and elevational data will be ground-truthed in late-winter 2016, prior to site selection. The slope of each plot will be measured using a clinometer. Data Analysis: Amphibian diversity modeling: Amphibian count data will be used to calculate species richness and evenness, and biological diversity indices (Simpson and Shannon-Wiener) for each site (n=60). Geospatial data (aspect, slope, and elevation), and environmental data (soil pH, moisture, and temperature; CWD, leaf-litter density, and canopy openness) will then be used in regression models as predictor variables for amphibian diversity metrics using SPSS 22 (IBM SPSS Statistics 2013). Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) will be used to select models and determine which spatial and microhabitat factors best explain variation in amphibian diversity metrics and spatial distribution (Mazerolle 2006). Occupancy modeling: To account for imperfect detection probabilities (p < 1), a binomial-mixture model for spatially replicated sampling designs (Royle 2004) will be used to analyze count data and estimate terrestrial amphibian abundances as a function of site-level (i.e. aspect, slope, and elevation) and environmental (i.e. soil chemistry, moisture, and temperature; CWD, leaf-litter depth, and canopy structure) covariates. Because detection probabilities will likely vary by species and life-stage, species-exclusive models will be generated, and run separately for juveniles and adults. A noteworthy assumption of this model is that populations are closed during sampling events (i.e. no immigration, emigration, births, or deaths). Fortunately, horizontal migration in terrestrial plethodontid salamanders is limited due to small home ranges (Kleeberger and Werner 1982), long-term site fidelity (Marvin 2001), and life histories that do not require seasonal migration to aquatic habitat for reproduction. Furthermore, estimates of daily movement in P. cinereus, a common, widely spread, terrestrial plethodontid in eastern US (Conant and Collins 1998), suggests that horizontal immigration and emigration in my study’s 0.04-ha sampling plots is unlikely (Ousterhout and Liebgold 2010), and perhaps only possible in peripheral subplots. Vertical migration is known to affect detection probabilities in terrestrial amphibians, and is largely driven by climatic conditions and soil moisture; therefore, including such variables as Julian date, soil temperature, soil moisture, and days since last rain in the models should account for variability in detection (Peterman and Semlitsch 2013). Resulting candidate models will be weighed and a top predictive model selected. Literature Cited Adams, D. C., and Rohlf, F. J. 2000. Ecological character displacement in Plethodon: biomechanical differences found from a geometric morphometric study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97:4106 – 111. Arau´jo, M. B., Nogue´s-Bravo, D., Diniz-Filho, D. A. F., Haywood, A. M., Valdes, P. J., and Rahbek, C. 2007. Quaternary climate changes explain diversity among reptiles and amphibians. Ecography doi: 10.1111/j.2007.0906-7590.05318.x Bailey, L. L., Simons, T. R., and Pollock, K. H. 2004. Estimating Site Occupancy and Species Detection Probability Parameters for Terrestrial Salamanders. Ecological Applications 14(3):692 – 702. Baldwin, R. F., Calhoun, A. J. K., and DeMaynadier, P. G. 2006. Conservation Planning for Amphibian Species with Complex Habitat Requirements: A Case Study Using Movements and Habitat Selection of the Wood Frog Rana sylvaticus. Journal of Herpetology 40(4):442 – 453. Beers, T. W., Dress, P. E., and Wensel, L. C. 1966. Aspect transformation in site productivity research. Journal of Forestry 64:691 – 692. Boone, M. D., Semlitsch, R. D., Little, E. E., and Doyle, M. C. 2007. Multiple Stressors in Amphibian Communities: Effects of Chemical Contamination, Bullfrogs, and Fish. Ecological Applications 17(1):291 – 301. Braun, E. L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern North America. Hafner, New York, NY. Brimley, C. S. 1912. Notes on the salamanders of the North Carolina Mountains with descriptions of two new forms. Proceedings in Biological Sciences, Washington. 25:135 – 140. Brooks, T. M., Mittermeier, R. A, Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B., Rylands, A. B., Konstant, W. R., Flick, P., Pilgrim, J., Oldfield, S., Magin, G., and Hilton-Taylor, C. 2002. Habitat Loss and Extinction in the Hotspots of Biodiversity. Conservation Biology 16(4):909 – 923. Burton, T. M., and Likens, G. E. 1975a. Salamander Populations and Biomass in the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Copeia 1975(3):541 – 546. Burton, T. M., and Likens, G. E. 1975b. Energy Flow and Nutrient Cycling in Salamander Populations in the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire. Ecology 56(5):1068 – 1080. Chapman, J. I., and McEwan, R. W. 2013. Spatiotemporal dynamics of a- and b-diversity across topographic gradients in the herbaceous layer of an old-growth deciduous forest. Oikos 000:1-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2013.00544.x Conant, R. and Collins, J. T. 1998. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians – Eastern/Central North America. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA. Cope, E. D. 1870. Observations of the fauna of the Southern Alleghanies. American Naturalist. 4:392 – 402. Costa, G. C., Wolfe, C., Shepard, D. B., Caldwell, J. P., and Vitt, L. J. 2008. Detecting the influence of climatic variables on species distributions: a test using GIS niche-based models along a steep longitudinal environmental gradient. Journal of Biogeography 35:637 – 646. Davis, G. D., Chapman, J. I., Wu, S., McEwan, R. W. 2015. Spatiotemporal dynamics of coarse woody debris in an old-growth temperate deciduous forest. Forest Science 61(4):680 – 688. Davis, T. M. and Ovaska, K. 2001. Individual recognition of amphibians: effects of toe clipping and florescent tagging on the salamander, Plethodon vehiculum. Journal of Herpetology 35(2):217 – 225. Dodd, C. K., Jr. 2004. The Amphibians of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. 283 pp. Drohan, P. J., Brittingham, M., Bishop, J., and Yoder, K. 2012. Early trends in landcover change and forest fragmentation due to shale-gas development in Pennsylvania: a potential outcome for the Northcentral Appalachians. Environmental Management 49(5):1061 – 1075. ESRI. 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Inc. Ford, W. M., Menzel, M. A., and Odom, R. H. 2002. Elevation, Aspect, and Cove Size Effects on Southern Appalachian Salamanders. Southeastern Naturalist 1(4):315 – 324. Frazer, G. W., Canham, C. D., and Lertzman, K. 1999. Gap light analyzer (GLA) Version 2.0. Imaging software to extract canopy structure and gap light transmission indices from true-color fisheye photographs: user’s manual and program documentation. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada, pp.36. Frazer, G. W., Lertzman, K. P., and Trofymow, J. A. 1997. A method for estimating canopy openness, effective leaf area index, and photosynthetically active photon flux density using hemispherical photography and computerized image analysis techniques. Vol. 373. Victoria, BC: Pacific Forestry Centre. Gaston, K. J. 2000. Global Patterns in Biodiversity. Nature 405:207 – 227. Gibbs, J. P. Distribution of woodland amphibians along a forest fragmentation gradient. Landscape Ecology 13:263 – 268. Hairston, N. G. 1949. The Local Distribution and Ecology of the Plethodontid Salamanders on the Southern Appalachians. Ecological Monographs 19(1):47 – 73. Hairston, N. G. 1950. Intergradation in Appalachian salamanders of the genus Plethodon. Copeia 1950:262 – 273. Hairston, N. G. 1951. Interspecies competition and its probable influence upon the vertical distribution of Appalachian salamanders of the genus Plethodon. Ecology 32:312 – 319. Hairston, N. G. 1980. Evolution under interspecific competition: field experiments on terrestrial salamanders. Evolution 34:409 – 420. Harpole, D. N. and Haas, C. A. 1999. Effects of seven silvicultural treatments on terrestrial salamanders. Forest Ecology and Management 114:349 – 356. Herbert, T. J. 1987. Area Projections of Fisheye Photographic Lenses. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 39:215 – 223. Highton, R. 1972. Distributional interactions among eastern North American salamanders of the genus Plethodon. In Holt, P. C., Paterson, R. A., and Hubbard, J. P. (eds.) The Distributional History of the Biota of the Southern Appalachians Part III: Vertebrates. pp. 139 – 188. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Highton, R. 1995. Speciation in eastern North American Salamanders of the genus Plethodon. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 26:579 – 600. Highton, R. and Peabody, R. B. 2000. Geographic protein variation and speciation in salamanders of the Plethodon jordani and Plethodon glutinosis complexes in the Southern Appalachian Mountains with the description of four new species. In Bruce, R. C., Jaeger, R. G., and Houck, L. D. (eds.) The Biology of Plethodontid Salamanders, pp. 31 – 93. Kluwer Academic, New York, NY. Hill, J. D. 1976. Climate of Kentucky. Re. no. 221. Univ. of Kentucky Agric. Exp. Stn. Houck, L. D. 1982. Growth Rates and Age at Maturity for the Plethodontid Salamander Bolitoglossa subpalmata. Copeia 1982(2):474 – 478. Houlahan, J.E., Findlay, C. S., Benedikt, R. S., Meyer, A. H., Kuzim, S. L. 2000. Quantitative evidence for global amphibian population declines. Nature 404:752 – 755. IBM Corp. 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Jaeger, R. G. 1970. Potential extinction through competition between two species of terrestrial salamanders. Evolution 24:632 – 642. Jaeger, R. G. 1971a. Moisture as a Factor Influencing the Distributions of Two Species of Terrestrial Salamanders. Oecologia 6:191 – 207. Jaeger, R. G. 1971b. Competitive Exclusion as a Factor Influencing the Distributions of Two Species of Terrestrial Salamanders. Ecology 52(4):632 – 637. Jaeger, R. G. and Inger, R. F. 1994. Quadrat Sampling. In Heyer, W. R., Maureen, A. D., McDiarmid, R. W., Hayek, L. C., Foster, M. S. (eds.) Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, USA. Johnson, T. R. 2000. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 400 pp. Keen, W. H. 1982. Habitat Selection and Interspecific Competition in Two Species of Plethodontid Salamanders. Ecology 62(1):94 – 102. King, W. 1939. A Survey of the Herpetology of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The American Midland Naturalist 21(3):531 – 582. Kleeberger, S. R. and Werner, J. K. 1982. Home Range and Homing Behavior of Plethodon cinereus in Northern Michigan. Copeia 1982(2)409 – 415. Krzysik, A. J. 1979. Resource Allocation, coexistence, and the niche structure of a stream bank salamander community. Ecological Monographs 49:173 – 194. MacArthur, R. H. 1970. Species packing and competitive equilibria for many species. Theoretical Population Biology 1:1 – 11. MacArthur, R. H. and Levins, R. 1964. Competition, habitat selection, and character displacement in a patchy environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 51:1207 – 1210. Martin, W. H. 1975. The Lilley Cornett Woods: A Stable Mixed Mesophytic Forest in Kentucky. Botanical Gazetteer 136(2):171 – 183. Marvin, G. A. 2001. Age, Growth, and Long-term Site Fidelity in the Terrestrial Plethodontid Salamander, Plethodon kentucki. Copeia 2001(1):108 – 117. Mazerolle, M. J. 2006. Improving analysis in herpetology: using Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) to assess the strength of biological hypotheses. Amphibian-Reptilian. 27:169 – 180. McKenny, H. C., Keeton, W. S., and Donovan, T. M. 2006. Effects of structural complexity enhancement on eastern red-backed salamander populations in northern hardwood forests. Forest Ecology and Management 230:186 – 196. Menin, M., Lima, A. P., Magnusson, W. E., and Waldez, F. 2007. Topographic and Edaphic Effects on the Distribution of Terrestrially Reproducing Anurans in Central Amazonia: Mesoscale Spatial Patters. Journal of Tropical Ecology 23(5):539 -547. Muller, R. N. 2003. Landscape patterns of change in coarse woody debris accumulation in an old-growth deciduous forest on the Cumberland Plateau, southeastern Kentucky. Canadian Journal of Forest Restoration. 33:763 – 769. Muller, R. N. and Liu, Y. 1991. Coarse woody debris in an old-growth deciduous forest on the Cumberland Plateau, southeast Kentucky. Canadian Journal of Forest Restoration 21:1567 – 1572. Niemiller, M. L. and Reynolds, R. G. 2011. The Amphibians of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. 369 pp. Ousterhout, B. H. and Liebgold, E. B. 2010. Dispersal Versus Site Tenacity of Adult and Juvenile Red-Backed Salamanders (Plethodon cinereus). Herpetologica 66(3):269 – 275. Peterman, W. E. and Semlitsch, R. D. 2013. Fine-scale Habitat Associations of a Terrestrial Salamander: The Role of Environmental Gradients and Implications for Population Dynamics. PLoS ONE 8(5): e62184. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062184 Peterson, A. T. 2006. Uses and requirements of ecological niche models and related distributional models. Biodiversity Informatics 3:59 – 72. Petranka, J. W., Brannon, M. P., Hopey, M. E., and Smith, C. K. 1994. Effects of timber harvesting on low elevation populations of southern Appalachian salamanders. Forest Ecology and Management 67(1-3):135 – 147. Petranka, J. W., Eldridge, M. E., and Haley, K. E. 1993. Effects of Timber Harvesting on Southern Appalachian Salamanders. Conservation Biology 7(2):363 – 370. Royle, J. A. 2004. N-Mixture Models for Estimating Population Size from Spatially Replicated Counts. Biometrics 60:108 – 115. SAS Institute. 2011. The SAS system for Windows. Release 9.2. SAS Institute, Cary, NC. Scheffers, B. R. and Paszkowski, C. A. 2012. The effects of urbanization on North American amphibian species: identifying new directions for urban conservation. Urban Ecosystems 15(1):133 – 147. Semlitsch, R. D., Conner, C. A., Hocking, D. J., Rittenhouse, T. A. G., and Harper, E. B. 2008. Effects of timber harvesting on amphibian persistence: Testing the evacuation hypothesis. Ecological Applications 12:283 – 289. Semlitsch, R. D., O’Donnell, K. M., and Thompson, F. R. III. 2014. Abundance, biomass production, nutrient content, and the possible role of terrestrial salamanders in Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystems. Canadian Journal of Zoology 92:997 – 1004. Semlitsch, R. D., Peterman, W. E., Anderson, T. L., Drake, D. L., and Ousterhout, B. H. 2015. Intermediate Pond Sized Contain the Highest Density, Richness, and Diversity of PondBreeding Amphibians. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0123055. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0123055 Stuart, S. N., Chanson, J. S., Cox, N. A., Young, B. E., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Fischman, D. L., and Waller, R. W. 2004. Status and Trends of Amphibian Declines and Extinctions Worldwide. Science 306.5702 (2004):1783 – 1786. Todd, B. D. and Rothermel, B. B. 2006. Assessing quality of clearcut habitats for amphibians: Effects on abundance versus vital rates in the southern toad (Bufo terrestris). Biological Conservation 133:178 – 185. Trauth, S. E., Robison, H. W., and Plummer, M. V. 2004. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press. Fayetteville, Arkansas. 421 pp. Walls, S. C., Barachivich, W. J., and Brown, M. E. 2013. Drought, Deluge, and Declines: The Impact of Precipitation Extremes on Amphibians in a Changing Climate. Biology 2(1):399 – 418. Welsh, H. H. Jr. and Ollivier, L. M. 1998. Stream Amphibians as Indicators of Ecosystem Stress: A Case Study from California’s Redwoods. Ecological Applications 8:1118 – 1132. Werner, E. E., Skelly, D. K., Relyea, R. A., and Yurewicz, K. L. 2007. Amphibian species richness across environmental gradients. Oikos 116:1697 – 1712. Willig, M. R., Kaufman, D. M., and Stevens, R. D. 2003. Latitudinal Gradients of Biodiversity: Pattern, Process, Scale, and Synthesis. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34(2003):273 – 309. Willson, J. D., Hopkins, W. A., Bergeron, C. M., and Todd, B. D. 2012. Making leaps in amphibian ecotoxicology: translating individual-level effects of contaminants to population viability. Ecological Applications 22(6):1791 – 1802. Woolley, H. P. 1973. Subcutaneous Acrylic Polymer Injections as a Marking Technique for Amphibians. Copeia 1973(2):340. Wyman, R. L. 1988. Soil acidity and moisture and the distribution of amphibians in five forests of south-central New York. Copeia 1988:394 – 399. Wyman, R. L. 1990. What’s Happening to the Amphibians? Conservation Biology. 4:350 – 352. Wyman, R. L. 1998. Experimental assessment of salamanders as predators of detrital food webs: effects on invertebrates, decomposition, and the carbon cycle. Biodiversity and Conservation 7:641 – 650. Wyman, R. L. and Hawksley-Lescault, D. S. 1987. Soil acidity affects the distribution, behavior, and physiology of the salamander Plethodon cinereus. Ecology 68:1819 – 1827. Wyman, R. L. and Jancola, J. 1992. Degree and scale of Terrestrial Acidification on Amphibian Community Structure. Journal of Herpetology 26(4):392 – 401. YSI Incorporated. 2015. Technical Note T620: Soil Sample Analysis for pH: Methods to Determine Soil pH with the EcoSense pH 100. Yellow Springs, Ohio. Figures: Fig. 1: Map of Lilley Cornett Woods (LCW) Appalachian Ecological Research Station in Letcher County, Kentucky, USA. Short Trail Stand (STS), a mixed mesophytic old growth stand belonging to LCW, is delineated in red (dashed).